The judge did not supersede the premise of a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and did not claim he "will be the arbiter of what our rights are". He decided the case based on written law, as he must. There is no right to impose religion in government. He rejected Davis' claim that in the name of "natural law" her religious beliefs exempt her from the law.

That is hilarious! Only in America...

You again. I think you're just mad because the brave lady got out of jail.
She probably used some of that oo-ee mysticism put-down jive.

Her (and your) mysticism is not an excuse to impose religion on other people.

They did approve same sex marriage for all states.

From the supreme court ruling;

The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"


Maybe TEN minutes would have been better

Well, she could hire him into her Foundation and pay him lots of money to just STFU ... OR... promote her lies...
:)
We'll find out soon enough what's really going on behind closed doors...

To clarify what the ruling said;

The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

I posted it here also - http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I'm sorry, i thought he was being rather generous.

Where, in all of that, does the right of the individual come in? More importantly, where is your defense of the right of the individual?

Every bit of that is an attempt at distraction from what is really at issue here. The state laws were violating individual rights. The Supreme Court overturned them. Then a state employee took it upon herself to continue to violate those rights because her gods law should supersede mans law. If she had been a muslim trying to enforce sharia you would have been after her head like any other christian.

We still have the issue of having to ask permission to get married to deal with. This is immoral and makes all the other points moot because we are discussing the morality vs immorality of enforcing laws that are immoral in the first place. Once again, the only purpose for these laws is control, to divide the population and get them fighting amongst themselves. One would almost have to conclude that those who claim that this is about redefining the word marriage, or activist judges, or this is about religious freedom, or the first amendment rights of a delusional woman who happens to be a government official must just not want to take that control away from the government.

Not necessarily. Contract provisions vary from State to State as do their enforceability because most contract law is based on that State's common law provisions, which can vary widely. What is really at issue here is the Full Faith and Credit Clause which attempts to eliminate the need for each State to negotiate with each other State on the status of every type of contract out there. The problem is that this relies upon standard definitions for most common terminology and common practice. When some determine to alter the terminology and attempt to inflict this upon others, it becomes a serious Constitutional problem. This is further exacerbated when there is no power in the Constitution which vests authority on the Federal Government any privilege of authority over contract law.

At issue is whether or not a marriage contract is enforceable regardless of whether or not it violates miscegenation laws. I would also note that anti-miscegenation laws have existed since before this nation began. Those laws refused to recognize the legal authority of various types of marriages based on the cultures of the time. Some prohibited inter-racial marriages, some prohibited near-family relations. At a national level, there was also a law passed prohibiting bigamy or polygamy. Nearly all states have anti-pedophilia and anti-necrophilia laws on the books as well. With this ruling, all of those statutes are similarly in question - as well as many others.

Possibly his insult to millions of people without rational justification. Very elitist.

Now someone else downvoted you. Apparently the state of Kentucky is not thought too highly of around here. :)

There is a right to be treated equally under the law. Since asking permission to get married (as immoral as that is) is required by law, then everyone has the same right to get married, or not, regardless of race, orientation, gender, hair color or whatever.

This absolutely applies to second amendment rights as well and if you want to take that case to the supreme court I will absolutely donate to that cause. States are allowed to hold these different interpretations because so many people, including on this site, have a poor understanding of rights and the realities that necessitate them.

"requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and"
That is copied off the Supreme Court decision. That makes it legal in all states.

Just what part is only my "opinion"? That the Kentucky law is immoral? Careful, your subjective, religious views are showing. A law that allows or requires agents/representatives/employees of the government to treat one person differently, by law, because of gender, orientation, race, ford or chevy preference or whatever is immoral. Fifty dictators is not better than one dictator. Whatever group is taking their turn using the ruling to their advantage is irrelevant.

But there is no "right" to marriage one way or the other. Marriage is a contract and subject to contract law, where government's place is in invalidating or upholding the contract's provisions via recognition.

Now if one wants to argue that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Federal Government has arbitrate which contracts are enforceable, one may have a case. Here's my question, however: if that premise holds, then why are States allowed to hold differing interpretations of Second Amendment privileges, which are enumerated and recognized rights?

Yes. See especially this very detailed list: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding...

What strikes me in particular is that though they all believed in God as the source of rights, they all agreed that people should be free to associate in any manner they chose - or not at all.

But there is no right to marry. One may claim that they have the right to engage in contracts and I would agree. The question then becomes one of contract enforceability. That is what the Supreme Court's decision, however, completely overlooked: that the Federal Government has no authority over marriage one way or the other.

Now if one wants to claim that a marriage in one State should be as legal as a marriage in another State, one is then arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and that I think is a legitimate claim because it deals with legal enforceability of contracts. But there is no substantiated Fourteenth Amendment claim here because no rights are being abridged.

The Tenth Amendment simply states that all laws not subject to Federal Authority by virtue of specifically outlined duties in the Constitution are reserved to the individual States. In my opinion, the Tenth Amendment absolutely applies here.

As an aside, it will be interesting now to see if this same reciprocity is now enforced with regards to the Second Amendment, which is a right and yet which individual States have their own policies and agreements regarding its interpretation.

What is destroying the family was government interference in the first place. This is one step closer to allowing the market to handle the answer, rather than using force to support your personal viewpoint. It's a freedom/liberty issue.

The problem with your analogy, even moreso than the fact that you used Nazis in a discussion about marriage, is that this woman's "morality" is wrong. She is the one advocating for more government control over people's daily lives.
Morality is not a subjective concept. It is real and objective.
While the law cannot force us to be moral, only punish us for immorality, if you are voluntarily in a position where your job is to enforce the law and you decide to make up your own more restrictive laws to follow instead, then you are not doing your job. The only moral choice is to resign. She is simply throwing herself on the figurative sword and attempting to make a martyr of herself.

"Pandora's box" is a bit extreme of an analogy. So changing the government's criteria for which unions it recognizes as "marriage" is the equivalent of the curiosity and naivete of a single woman who unleashed all of the evil upon the world?
I understand that this is likely not the literal intent behind your analogy, but please keep in mind that words have meaning, and we should choose our words with more care.
Your post also equates homosexuality with bestiality. You also appear to subscribe to the false idea that the only thing stopping people from having sex with their relatives, pets, and livestock was the rigid definition of marriage held up by our moral crusaders in congress. Do you really think this will become a rampant problem?

And honestly, what would be the issue with close relatives getting "married?" An elderly sister and brother who are taking care of each other and living together could get "married" to make paperwork easier if one of them passes, etc. What horrible things will happen if that becomes legal? I think all the hang wringing over this change is blown out of proportion and simply reactionary.
And finally, yes I agree that government should get out of marriage entirely, and that is why this decision is a good thing. It is one step closer. It is one fewer type of union that government is blocking from being "married," so that means it is one small amount freer. It rarely happens anymore that we become more free with government decisions, so let's celebrate the small victories while we can... Rather than deride them as the beginning of the end of civilized society.